Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL, 3648-3652 [E8-1013]
Download as PDF
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
17:05 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22JAR1.SGM
22JAR1
ER22JA08.004
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
3648
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
3649
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:05 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22JAR1.SGM
22JAR1
ER22JA08.005
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
[FR Doc. 08–172 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
3650
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2007–0061, formerly
COTP St. Petersburg 07–226]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of
Manatee, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing a new security zone in the
Manbirtee Key area of Port Manatee,
Florida. The purpose of this security
zone is to ensure the security of vessels,
facilities, and the surrounding area.
Entry into the security zone is
prohibited without the permission of
the Captain of the Port.
DATES: This rule is effective February
21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket number USCG–2007–0061
(formerly COTP St. Petersburg 07–226)
and are available for inspection or
copying at Coast Guard Sector St.
Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155
Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL 33606–3598
between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The rulemaking documents
and comment received online are also
available at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the
Waterways Management Division,
Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228–2191
Ext. 8146.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Regulatory Information
On November 6, 2007, we published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone;
Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL in
the Federal Register (72 FR 62613). We
received no letters in the mail
commenting on the proposed rule and
one comment in the
www.regulations.gov electronic docket.
A public meeting was held on
November 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. and no
comments were made. A copy of the
transcript is available through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Background and Purpose
The Maritime Transportation Security
Act authorized the establishment of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:05 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Area Maritime Security Committees
(AMSC) that ‘‘advise, consult with,
report to, and make recommendations’’
on matters relating to maritime security
in an AMSC’s port area. See 46 U.S.C.
70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One
topic the Tampa AMSC discussed is the
existing security zones that were
established following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. These
existing security zones, created to
address identified security issues, were
established September 3, 2003, codified
in 33 CFR 165.760 (68 FR 52340,
September 3, 2003), and September 1,
2003, codified in § 165.764 (68 FR
47852, August 12, 2003), after a number
of temporary security zones.
In July 2007, using the newlydeveloped Maritime Security Risk
Analysis tool, the AMSC working group
evaluated risk to the maritime
transportation system (MTS) within
Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk
mitigation options. The results of the
risk assessment indicated the need to
establish a new security zone in the
vicinity of Manbirtee Key, FL.
Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received one
question during the comment period:
‘‘What infrastructure are you [Coast
Guard] protecting?’’ The purpose of the
security zone is to protect pipeline
infrastructures within 500 yards of the
shore of Manbirtee Key. No changes
from the proposed rule were made in
response to this comment.
Discussion of Rule
This final rule creates a security zone
in the following area: All waters of
Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom,
surrounding Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay,
FL extending 500 yards from the
island’s shoreline, in all directions, with
the exception of the Port Manatee
Channel.
Entry into or remaining on or within
this zone would be prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector St. Petersburg or his designated
representative. Persons desiring to
transit the area of the security zone may
contact the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or his designee on VHF
channel 16 to seek permission to transit
the area. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels must comply with
the instructions of the Captain of the
Port or his designated representative.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order.
We expect the economic impact of
this final rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary. This final rule may have
some impact on the public, but these
potential impacts will be minimized for
the following reasons: There is ample
room for vessels to navigate around the
security zone, and there are several
locations for recreational and
commercial fishing vessels to fish
throughout the Tampa Bay Region.
Properly vetted personnel who comply
with additional requirements may gain
authorization for entry through a port
zone watch program. Also, the Captain
of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis
allow persons or vessels to enter a
security zone.
The changes to the regulatory text that
incorporate the response to the inquiry
received during the comment period do
not have any economic impact. The
navigational charts of the area already
indicate the submerged pipeline.
Adding this description to the
regulatory text has no impact on
commerce.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. No
comments were received during the
comment period regarding potential
impacts on small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
E:\FR\FM\22JAR1.SGM
22JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
compliance, please contact the office
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, for assistance in
understanding this rule. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about
this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism. The
changes to the regulatory text which
address the inquiry made during the
comment period do not have an impact
on federalism. The navigational charts
of the area already indicate the
submerged pipeline. Adding this
description to the regulatory text has no
impact on commerce.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this rule will not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:05 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3651
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we
believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2–
1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction,
from further environmental
documentation. A final ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a final
‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’
are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES during the
comment period. No comments were
received regarding the impact to the
environment in response to the
proposed rule or the preliminary
environmental analysis checklist for this
security zone.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
I
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
I
2. Add § 165.767 to read as follows:
§ 165.767 Security Zone; Manbirtee Key,
Port of Manatee, Florida.
(a) Regulated area. The following area
is a security zone: All waters, from
surface to bottom, surrounding
Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL
extending 500 yards from the island’s
shoreline, in all directions, not to
include the Port Manatee Channel.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers and other officers operating
Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, State,
and local officers designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP),
in the enforcement of regulated
navigation areas, safety zones, and
security zones.
(c) Regulation. (1) Entry into or
remaining on or within the security
zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector St.
Petersburg or his designee.
E:\FR\FM\22JAR1.SGM
22JAR1
3652
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Persons desiring to transit the
security zone may contact the Captain of
the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his
designee on VHF channel 16 to seek
permission to transit the area. If
permission is granted, all persons and
vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port or
designated representative.
(3) Enforcement. Under § 165.33, no
person may cause or authorize the
operation of a vessel in the security
zone contrary to the provisions of this
section.
Dated: January 10, 2008.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. E8–1013 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document announces the
effective dates of rules published in the
Federal Register. The rules relate to
Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems,
and the notification that those entities
must provide the Federal
Communications Commission when
they commence broadcasting digital
signals.
The final rules published on
August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45670),
amending 47 CFR 73.404(b), 73.404(e),
and 73.1201, are effective January 22,
2008.
DATES:
47 CFR Part 76
For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Ann Gallagher,
Ann.Gallagher@fcc.gov, 202–418–2716,
of the Media Bureau, Audio Division, or
Brendan Murray,
Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, (202) 418–
2120, of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division.
[MM Docket No. 99–325; FCC 07–33]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems
and Their Impact on the Terrestrial
Radio Broadcast Service
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Second Report and Order stated
that the rule changes requiring OMB
approval would become effective
immediately upon announcement in the
Federal Register of OMB approval. On
December 10, 2007, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approved the information collection
requirements contained in 47 CFR
73.404(b), 73.404(e), and 73.1201. This
information collection is assigned OMB
Control Nos. 3060–0466 and 3060–1034.
This publication satisfies the statement
that the Commission would publish a
document announcing the effective date
of the rule changes requiring OMB
approval.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:05 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–1008 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
In a
Second Report and Order released on
May 31, 2007, FCC 07–33, and
published in the Federal Register on
August 15, 2007, 72 FR 45670, the
Federal Communications Commission
adopted a new rule which contained
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22JAR1.SGM
22JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3648-3652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1013]
[[Page 3650]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2007-0061, formerly COTP St. Petersburg 07-226]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a new security zone in the
Manbirtee Key area of Port Manatee, Florida. The purpose of this
security zone is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the
surrounding area. Entry into the security zone is prohibited without
the permission of the Captain of the Port.
DATES: This rule is effective February 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket number USCG-2007-0061 (formerly COTP St. Petersburg
07-226) and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard
Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive,
Tampa, FL 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The rulemaking documents and comment
received online are also available at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the
Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228-2191
Ext. 8146.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On November 6, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL in
the Federal Register (72 FR 62613). We received no letters in the mail
commenting on the proposed rule and one comment in the
www.regulations.gov electronic docket. A public meeting was held on
November 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. and no comments were made. A copy of the
transcript is available through the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site.
Background and Purpose
The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the
establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSC) that
``advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations'' on
matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC's port area. See 46
U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa AMSC
discussed is the existing security zones that were established
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. These existing
security zones, created to address identified security issues, were
established September 3, 2003, codified in 33 CFR 165.760 (68 FR 52340,
September 3, 2003), and September 1, 2003, codified in Sec. 165.764
(68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003), after a number of temporary security
zones.
In July 2007, using the newly-developed Maritime Security Risk
Analysis tool, the AMSC working group evaluated risk to the maritime
transportation system (MTS) within Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk
mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment indicated the
need to establish a new security zone in the vicinity of Manbirtee Key,
FL.
Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received one question during the comment period:
``What infrastructure are you [Coast Guard] protecting?'' The purpose
of the security zone is to protect pipeline infrastructures within 500
yards of the shore of Manbirtee Key. No changes from the proposed rule
were made in response to this comment.
Discussion of Rule
This final rule creates a security zone in the following area: All
waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key,
Tampa Bay, FL extending 500 yards from the island's shoreline, in all
directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee Channel.
Entry into or remaining on or within this zone would be prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or
his designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of
the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or
his designee on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area.
If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal
that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This final rule may
have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be
minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for vessels to
navigate around the security zone, and there are several locations for
recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the
Tampa Bay Region. Properly vetted personnel who comply with additional
requirements may gain authorization for entry through a port zone watch
program. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis
allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.
The changes to the regulatory text that incorporate the response to
the inquiry received during the comment period do not have any economic
impact. The navigational charts of the area already indicate the
submerged pipeline. Adding this description to the regulatory text has
no impact on commerce.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. No comments were received during the comment period regarding
potential impacts on small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for
[[Page 3651]]
compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, for assistance in understanding this rule. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism. The changes to the regulatory text which address the
inquiry made during the comment period do not have an impact on
federalism. The navigational charts of the area already indicate the
submerged pipeline. Adding this description to the regulatory text has
no impact on commerce.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES during the comment period. No comments were received
regarding the impact to the environment in response to the proposed
rule or the preliminary environmental analysis checklist for this
security zone.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.767 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.767 Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, Florida.
(a) Regulated area. The following area is a security zone: All
waters, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay,
FL extending 500 yards from the island's shoreline, in all directions,
not to include the Port Manatee Channel.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains,
petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, State, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP), in the enforcement of regulated navigation
areas, safety zones, and security zones.
(c) Regulation. (1) Entry into or remaining on or within the
security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designee.
[[Page 3652]]
(2) Persons desiring to transit the security zone may contact the
Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designee on VHF
channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
(3) Enforcement. Under Sec. 165.33, no person may cause or
authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zone contrary to
the provisions of this section.
Dated: January 10, 2008.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. E8-1013 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P